alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Last Updated: 14 February 2022 09:46

Top PPQ iPad Troubleshooting Tips

Issue Troubleshooting Tips 

iPad not working (broken) Open CEC IT Ticket.

Forgot passcode Open CEC IT Ticket.

Survey app is not installed or 

disappeared

Check for app on Apps@Work. 

If not - Open CEC IT Ticket.

iPad stopped working. Error message: 

“iPad had been disabled”

Check for a reliable Wi-Fi Connection. 

Then check for iOS updates. 

 Settings - General - Software update

Open CEC IT Ticket.

Error message:

"Server may not be responding" 

attempting to open a survey app

Check for a reliable Wi-Fi connection.

Check for internet speed using Speed Test from a web 

browser. 

If the internet speed is less than 10 Mbps, change 

network connection (if there are trusted options ) . 

Then check for iOS updates. 

 Settings - General - Software update

Settings app: Confirm note on the top left side: 

“This iPad is supervised and managed by USDA.”

If the issue persists, it might be due to temporary loss 

of access to APHIS network or USDA eAuth server. Wait 

for about an hour and try to open the app again. 

Send email to APHIS-PPQ Ops WebGIS Connect and 

describe the issue along with the steps taken.

Survey app fails to sync collected data Check for a reliable Wi-Fi connection.

Check for internet speed using Speed Test from a web 

browser.

If the internet speed is less than 10 Mbps, change 

network connection (if there are trusted options). 

Then check for iOS updates. 

 Settings - General - Software update

Sign out from the survey app and sign in again 

selecting “Specify new URL” option.

If the issue persists, it might be due to temporary loss 

of access to APHIS network or USDA eAuth server. Wait 

for about an hour and try to open the app again.

Obtain troubleshooting log (Open Profile – 

Troubleshooting – View Logs)

Send email to APHIS-PPQ Ops WebGIS Connect and 

describe the issue along with the steps taken and 

attach the troubleshooting log.

End User Tools Request links: Support Request (End User Tools) Mobile Device Request Training Request

Contact: WebGIS.Connect@usda.gov
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           IBIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
              STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                      1997              1998             1999
                                                  -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                               <C>               <C>               <C>
Basic net income (loss) ....................      $(3,937,456)      $(1,165,960)      $   827,129
                                                  ===========       ===========       ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding-
  basic ....................................        5,709,931         6,759,870         7,403,803
Net additional common shares upon assumed
  exercise of stock options and warrants ...               --                --           414,348
                                                  -----------       -----------       -----------
Weighted average commons shares outstanding-
  diluted ..................................        5,709,931         6,759,870         7,818,151
                                                  ===========       -----------       -----------
Net income (loss) per common share
  Basic ....................................      $     (0.69)      $     (0.17)      $      0.11
                                                  ===========       ===========       ===========
  Diluted ..................................      $     (0.69)      $     (0.17)      $      0.11
                                                  ===========       ===========       ===========
</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1048 

To remove the authority of the Secretary of Energy to amend or issue 

new energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To remove the authority of the Secretary of Energy to amend 

or issue new energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CEILING FAN STANDARDS. 

4 Section 325(ff) of the Energy Policy and Conserva5 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6); and 

7 (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para8 graph (5). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:

         1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.





Date:    May 13, 2003                    /s/ Robert W. Peshek
         ------------                   ------------------------------------
                                        Robert W. Peshek, Vice President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Belden & Blake Corporation and will be retained by Belden & Blake
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be
treated as having been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# C_2020045EN.01003402.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris — France) — XS v Recteur de l'académie de Paris

(C-281/19) (1)

(2020/C 45/33)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7205
QUINCY DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusFRANK DREW, Sheriff, personally and officially; CAPTAIN O'BRIEN, personally and officially; LIEUTENANT ORTIZ, personally and officially, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-499-2) Submitted: December 26, 1995 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quincy Davis, App ellant Pro Se. Bruce Christopher Sams, SAMS & HAWKINS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Drew , No. CA-94-499-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.11 - 2002 OFFICER BONUS PLAN

Exabyte Corporation has adopted a 2002 Officer Bonus Plan under which all executive officers are awarded cash bonuses based on Exabyte's operating results. The respective bonus payments are calculated with reference to the actual pre-tax income results as measured against the 2002 Operating Plan presented and approved at the Board of Directors meeting on January 18, 2002. The pre-tax income level is measured prior to any accruals reflecting Exabyte's bonus payments. No profit bonus will be paid for achievement of 50% or less of the planned objective. At 100% achievement, 100% of the profit bonus will be paid. If the 2002 Operating Plan is fully achieved, 200% of the executive's bonus will be paid. If Exabyte shows a profit in its year-end results, 150% of bonus will be paid. If Exabyte is profitable for both the third and fourth quarters, 100% of bonus will be paid. If Exabyte is profitable for the fourth quarter only, 50% of bonus will be paid. No bonus will be paid if Exabyte shows no profitability in fiscal 2002.
#### Matter of the ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1953, OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE OWNED BY THE COURT ARCADE BUILDING CO., a Corporation.

No. 37603.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 29, 1957.

*243J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty., of Tulsa County, Donald D. ’ Cameron, Chief Civil Asst., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Landrith & McGee, by Thomas A. Land-rith, Jr., Tulsa, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Tulsa County Assessor from a judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County, fixing the valuation for ad valorem tax purposes for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, of a certain building in the City of Tulsa, known as the Court Arcade Building which was owned and operated by the Court Arcade Building Co. The protest and subsequent proceedings as to assessment for each of said years constituted a separate matter on appeal but all of them were consolidated in the District Court over the objection of the assessor. The parties will be referred to as “assessor” and “protestant.”

No question is here presented with regard to the assessed valuation of the lot upon which the building stood. This litigation is concerned with the assessed valuation of the building. The assessed valuation of $155,738.40 fixed by the assessor was reduced by some $30,000 by the judgment of the trial court from which this appeal was taken.

Except for minor differences in the evidence and that no issue has been made relative to the time when the protestant filed its protest with the board, this case is identical, as to issues and questions of law, in Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, Old., 316 P.2d 175. Our opinion and syllabus therein is approved and adopted as the syllabus and opinion herein and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ-, concur.

BLACKBIRD, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis.

WELCH, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., dissent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2006, filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in such Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retainedby the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
| Date: July 31, 2006 |                            |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------|
| * *                 | /s/ STEPHEN J.  J. LETWIN       |
| * *                 | Stephen J.J. Letwin             |
| * *                 | *Managing Director*             |
| * *                 | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27959]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 
20573. Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received 
within 12 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, 
and the Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on 
agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
[email protected].
    Agreement No.: 201325-001.
    Agreement Name: Sealand/Network Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Maersk A/S; Network Shipping, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The Amendment changes the name of the agreement and 
deletes Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Mexico from the geographic 
scope of the agreement. The Amendment changes the authority that Maersk 
had to charter space to Network to now authorizing Network to charter 
space to Maersk. The Amendment deletes obsolete language from the 
agreement and adds new language, revises the notice for termination and 
updates the persons to whom the notice is to be provided. The Amendment 
also restates the Agreement.
    Proposed Effective Date: 1/26/2024.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/25450.

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
Carl Savoy,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-27959 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60746

Summary Calendar

GELMIL H. BARRIOS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A070 431 236

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Petitioner Gelmil H. Barrios petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) determination that he is not entitled to withholding

of removal. Barrios contends that he is entitled to withholding of removal

because of past persecution and the likelihood of future persecution on account

of his political opinion, membership in a particular social group, and religion.

Barrios presented evidence that he left Guatemala because of the violence

caused by the guerillas and the kidnapping of his uncle.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 2, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2010
No. 09-60746

Barrios did not present religion and membership in a particular social

group as bases for withholding of removal to the BIA. Therefore, he failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, and we lack jurisdiction

to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448,

452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).

Barrios has not shown past persecution or the likelihood of future

persecution on account of his political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992); Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Barrios

is not entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903

(5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED.

2

Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2010
#### Howard R. SIMPSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12537.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 16, 1958.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1958.

Howard R. Simpson, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an attempted appeal by the plaintiff in error, Howard R. Simpson, by which he seeks to obtain a consolidation of two separate and distinct cases in which he was convicted by two separate and distinct trials, and in which two separate judgments and sentences were entered. There is no provision of law by which such procedure can be pursued in two entirely unrelated and disconnected convictions. The first case upon which conviction was had against said defendant was styled State of Oklahoma v. Howard R. Simpson, No. 17005, brought in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, for the unlawful possession of narcotic drugs after former conviction of a felony. In that case, the defendant received a judgment and sen*1119tence of six years in the penitentiary. The second case upon which an attempted review is sought is case No. 17076 in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in which he was charged with robbery by fear after former conviction of a felony and upon which conviction he received a sentence of ten years in the penitentiary.

The plaintiff in error, being without funds, made application for an order of this Court directing that the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, be required to furnish him with casemade in both of said cases, which order was granted. Notwithstanding the lack of statutory authority in support of the procedure employed herein by the defendant, we have examined the casemades, including the informations, the evidence, the instructions, and the judgments and sentences and find that these appeals are wholly without merit. The evidence in case No. 17005 discloses that the defendant was a suspect in a forgery matter and that his automobile was searched under a valid search warrant and the narcotics found under said search. In case No. 17076, the evidence discloses that the defendant was positively identified by the victims of the robbery by fear of which he was charged. This Court has repeatedly held in considering sufficiency of evidence, the function of the Criminal Court of Appeals is limited to ascertaining whether there is basis in evidence on which the jury could reasonably conclude that the accused is guilty as charged. Dodson v. State, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 437; Petty v. State, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 209; Scott v. State, Okl.Cr., 279 P.2d 1113. No other basis for an appeal appears in the record.

The judgments and sentences appealed from are affirmed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with  the Annual Report  of American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  Dr. J.  W. Stucki,  Chief Executive  Officer of  the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with  the requirements of Section  13(a)
           or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)  The information contained  in the Report  fairly presents, in  all
           material  respects,  the   financial  condition   and  result   of
           operations of the Company.


 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer
 December 29, 2003
# C_2020297EN.01001901.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

(Case C-496/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Examination of goods - Application for revision of a customs declaration - Post-clearance examination)

(2020/C 297/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Capaldo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding the initiation of the procedure for revision of the customs declaration provided for therein, even though the goods in question were, on a previous import, subject, without challenge, to a physical inspection confirming their tariff classification.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 21.10.2019.

---
18958

#### State v. Davis

December 30, 1996

Order No. 96-51

Affirmed
#### Hallmark Productions, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Department of Education, Division of Film Censorship, Appellee.

(No. 32165

Decided June *7,*1950.)

*Mr. W. E. Minshall,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Duffy,*attorney general, *Mr. William C. Bryant*and *Miss Gladys E. Davis,*for appellee..

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal be, and' the same is hereby dismissed, *sua sponte.*The proceeding to review an order of the Department of Education, relative to the censoring of motion picture-films is by the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court as prescribed by Section *154-47h,*General Code. *North American Committee to Aid Span*
      *597
      *ish Democracy*v. *Bowsher, Dir. of Education, Division of Film Censorship,*132 Ohio St., 599, 9 N. E. (2d), 617.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.